Multimodal treatment for local recurrent malignant gliomas: resurgery and/or reirradiation followed by chemotherapy

The therapeutic management of recurrent malignant gliomas (MGs) is not determined. Therefore, the efficacy of a multimodal approach and a combination systemic therapy was investigated. A retrospective analysis of 26 MGs patients at first relapse treated with multimodal therapy (chemotherapy plus surgery and/or reirradiation) or chemotherapy alone was performed. Second-line chemotherapy consisted of fotemustine (FTM) in combination with bevacizumab (BEV) (cFTM/BEV) or followed by third-line BEV (sFTM/BEV). Subgroup analyses were performed. Multimodal therapy provided a higher overall response rate (ORR) (73 vs. 47%), disease control rate (DCR) (82 vs. 67%), median progression-free survival (mPFS) (11 vs. 7 months; P=0.08) and median overall survival (mOS) (13 vs. 8 months; P=0.04) compared with chemotherapy. Concomitant FTM/BEV resulted in higher ORR (84 vs. 36%), DCR (92 vs. 57%), mPFS (10 vs. 5 months; P=0.22) and mOS (11 vs. 5.2 months; P=0.15) compared with sFTM/BEV. Methylated patients did not experience additional survival benefits with multimodality treatment but had higher mPFS (10 vs 7.1 months; P=0.33) and mOS (11 vs. 8 months; P=0.33) with cFTM/BEV. Unmethylated patients experienced the greatest survival benefit with the multimodal approach (mPFS: 10 vs. 5 months; mOS 11 vs 6 months; both P=0.02) and cFTM/BEV (mPFS: 5 vs. 2 months; mOS 6 vs. 3.2 months; both P=0.01). In conclusion, in recurrent MGs, multimodal therapy and cFTM/BEV provide survival and response benefits. Methylated patients benefit from a cFTM/BEV but not from a multimodal approach. Notably, unmethylated patients had the highest survival benefit with the two strategies

Retrospective analysis to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of Bevacizumab in the treatment of recurrent malignant gliomas

Abstract Background There is no consensus therapy recommended for recurrent malignant gliomas (MGs). In 2009, Bevacizumab (BEV) was approved by the FDA as single-agent for recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of BEV alone or in combination with Fotemustine (FTM) in recurrent MGs. This represents an interim analysis of a larger study on BEV in MGs patients. Methods We analyzed 17 recurrent MGs patients, 12 GBM (70.6%) and 5 anaplastic gliomas (29.4%), underwent first-line therapy with Stupp regimen. BEV was administered as off-label therapy, at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 14 days, in 13 patients as third-line therapy and in 4 patients as second-line therapy associated with FTM. The assessment of MGMT methylation and IDH1 mutation was conducted. Results One complete response (5.9%), 7 partial responses (41.2%), 3 stable diseases (17.6%) and 6 progression diseases (35.3%) were assessed using RANO criteria. Median PFS (mPFS) and OS (mOS) were 5 and 8.3 months respectively, with a 6 months-PFS of 41.2%. Methylated patients and wild-type IDH1 patients showed longer mPFS and mOS without statistical significance. Six patients (35.3%) experienced long response with high number of cycles (11-40), long PFS (11-40 months) and OS (12-42 months). BEV was well-tolerated with grade 1-2 proteinuria and hypertension in 53% and 47.1% of patients respectively. Only one patient developed grade 3 proteinuria after 30 cycles and another one developed pulmonary embolism. No other grade 3-4 toxicities were observed. Conclusions This retrospective study showed the efficacy and the safety of BEV alone or in association with FTM in the treatment of MGs. The protocol (No: Beva-Glio/Sep 2016)

Humoral and cellular immune response elicited by mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in people living with HIV (PLWH) receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) according with current CD4 T-lymphocyte count

BACKGROUND: Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity in PLWH are currently limited. Aim of the study was to investigate immunogenicity according to current CD4 T-cell count. METHODS: PLWH on ART attending a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination program, were included in a prospective immunogenicity evaluation after receiving BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Participants were stratified by current CD4 T-cell count (poor CD4 recovery, PCDR: 500/mm^{3}). RBD-binding IgG, SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) and IFN-γ release were measured. As control group, HIV-negative healthcare workers (HCWs) were used. FINDINGS: Among 166 PLWH after 1 month from the second dose, detectable RBD-binding IgG were elicited in 86.7% of PCDR, 100% of ICDR, 98.7% of HCDR, and a neutralizing titre ≥1:10 elicited in 70.0%, 88.2% and 93.1%, respectively. Compared to HCDR, all immune response parameters were significantly lower in PCDR. After adjusting for confounders, current CD4 T-cell 500 cell/mm^{3} and HIV-negative controls. A decreased RBD-binding antibody response than HCWs was also observed in PLWH with CD4 T-cell 200-500/mm^{3}, whereas immune response elicited in PLWH with a CD4 T-cell >500/mm^{}3 was comparable to HIV-negative population

HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance in newly diagnosed individuals in Italy over the period 2015–21

Background: Transmitted drug resistance (TDR) is still a critical aspect for the management of individuals living with HIV-1. Thus, its evaluation is crucial to optimize HIV care. Methods: Overall, 2386 HIV-1 protease/reverse transcriptase and 1831 integrase sequences from drug-naïve individuals diagnosed in north and central Italy between 2015 and 2021 were analysed. TDR was evaluated over time. Phylogeny was generated by maximum likelihood. Factors associated with TDR were evaluated by logistic regression. Results: Individuals were mainly male (79.1%) and Italian (56.2%), with a median (IQR) age of 38 (30-48). Non-B infected individuals accounted for 44.6% (N = 1065) of the overall population and increased over time (2015-2021, from 42.1% to 51.0%, P = 0.002). TDR prevalence to any class was 8.0% (B subtype 9.5% versus non-B subtypes 6.1%, P = 0.002) and remained almost constant over time. Overall, 300 transmission clusters (TCs) involving 1155 (48.4%) individuals were identified, with a similar proportion in B and non-infected individuals (49.7% versus 46.8%, P = 0.148). A similar prevalence of TDR among individuals in TCs and those out of TCs was found (8.2% versus 7.8%, P = 0.707).By multivariable analysis, subtypes A, F, and CFR02_AG were negatively associated with TDR. No other factors, including being part of TCs, were significantly associated with TDR. Conclusions: Between 2015 and 2021, TDR prevalence in Italy was 8% and remained almost stable over time. Resistant strains were found circulating regardless of being in TCs, but less likely in non-B subtypes. These results highlight the importance of a continuous surveillance of newly diagnosed individuals for evidence of TDR to inform clinical practice

Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19-Related Hospitalization among PLWH

Background: There is conflicting evidence for how HIV influences COVID-19 infection. The aim of this study was to compare characteristics at presentation and the clinical outcomes of people living with HIV (PLWH) versus HIV-negative patients (non-PLWH) hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: Primary endpoint: time until invasive ventilation/death. Secondary endpoints: time until ventilation/death, time until symptoms resolution. Results: A total of 1647 hospitalized patients were included (43 (2.6%) PLWH, 1604 non-PLWH). PLWH were younger (55 vs. 61 years) and less likely to be with PaO2/FiO2 p = 0.023). The cumulative probability of non-invasive/invasive ventilation/death at day 15 was 20.9% (11.5–36.4) in PLWH versus 37.6% (35.1–40.2) in non-PLWH (p = 0.044). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of invasive mechanical ventilation/death of PLWH was 0.49 (95% CI 0.12–1.96, p = 0.310) versus non-PLWH; similarly, aHR of non-invasive/invasive ventilation/death of PLWH was 1.03 (95% CI 0.53–2.00, p = 0.926). Conclusion: A less-severe presentation of COVID-19 at hospitalization was observed in PLWH compared to non-PLWH; no difference in clinical outcomes could be detected

Humoral and Cellular Immune Response Elicited by mRNA Vaccination Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy Based on Current CD4 T-Lymphocyte Count

Humoral and cell-mediated immune-response against SARS-CoV-2 were elicited in PLWH, significantly poorer in those with CD4 T-cell 500 cell/mm(3)and HIV-negative controls; immune response in PLWH with a CD4 T-cell >500/mm3 was comparable to HIV-negative population.Background Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity in PLWH are currently limited. Aim of the study was to investigate immunogenicity according to current CD4 T-cell count Methods PLWH on ART attending a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination program, were included in a prospective immunogenicity evaluation after receiving BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Participants were stratified by current CD4 T-cell count (poor CD4 recovery, PCDR: <200/mm(3); intermediate CD4 recovery, ICDR: 200-500/mm(3); high CD4 recovery, HCDR: >500/mm(3)). RBD-binding IgG, SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) and IFN-gamma release were measured. As control group, HIV-negative healthcare workers (HCWs) were used Findings Among 166 PLWH, after 1 month from the booster dose, detectable RBD-binding IgG were elicited in 86.7% of PCDR, 100% of ICDR, 98.7% of HCDR, and a neutralizing titre >= 1:10 elicited in 70.0%, 88.2%, and 93.1%, respectively. Compared to HCDR, all immune response parameters were significantly lower in PCDR. After adjusting for confounders, current CD4 T-cell <200/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of anti-RDB, nAbs and IFN-gamma response. As compared with HCWs, PCDR elicited a consistently reduced immunogenicity for all parameters, ICDR only a reduced RBD-binding antibody response, whereas HCDR elicited a comparable immune response for all parameters Conclusion Humoral and cell-mediated immune response against SARS-CoV-2 were elicited in most of PLWH, albeit significantly poorer in those with CD4 T-cell 500 cell/mm(3) and HIV-negative controls. A lower RBD-binding antibody response than HCWs was also observed in PLWH with CD4 T-cell 200-500/mm(3), whereas immune response elicited in PLWH with a CD4 T-cell >500/mm(3) was comparable to HIV-negative populatio

Sarilumab plus standard of care vs standard of care for the treatment of severe COVID-19: a phase 3, randomized, open-labeled, multi-center study (ESCAPE study)Research in context

Summary: Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81–94] in arm A vs 85% [74–93], HR 1.07 [0.8–1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% [77–96] vs 79% [63–91], HR 1.55 [0.9–2.6]; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% [79–96]) vs (73% [55–89], HR 1.53 [0.9–2.7]; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results. Funding: This study was supported by INMI “Lazzaro Spallanzani” Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health